Why should a father be charged for murdering a man who was raping his 2 year old daughter?

Question

That is not fair he should get a medal

Answer 1

i agree he should have killed him and took him to the doctor so they could revive him so he could kill him again

**** EM

Answer 2

Hi,

May be we are confusing between two terms. CHARGING and EXECUTING. Charging means blaming someone for his/her ats. Executing means giving punishments after deciding whether the action was right or wrong.

If the murder took place, then charges would be brought. It just shows that a murder took place. This does not mean that the father is going to be punished. It just means that the court is now going to hear why the father killed the man. Actually, this also gives the father an opportunity to tell the people what actually happened. Otherwise how will we know what actually took place? So charges are brought on actions committed. Ofcourse, a charge on the dead man would be brought accusing him of raping a minor. He is dead, but this does not stop bringing of charges.Because charges only talk of actions.

Hearing is the process in which it is decided whether the action was right or not. In the hearing of court, I am sure, the father would be able to prove that what he did was the only thing that could be done. The court would demand the evidences, and analyze what everyone has to say. If court finds that the father is right, then the decision would be pronounced. I am sure in the case that you are talking about, the decision would be acquittal of the father.

Execution happens when the judgement has been taken. In this part, the father would be acquitted. While the rapist would be condemened pothumously. Some more instructions would be passed to the police authorities to ensure the safety of the citizens.

So, charging is not really punishing. Charging only means testing, and deciding whether the intention of the action was right or wrong.

Answer 3

Why should a father be charged for murdering a man who was raping his 2 year old daughter?

Because he murdered the man. He is charged and he will have a day in court.

It is very important to remember that one must not take law in their hand. Two wrongs does not make one right.

In any law abiding society there are procedures for getting justice, and lot of times the society fail to provide justice, but as long as society tries to provide justice there is law and order in the society.

Without that the society will collapse. The people will do as they please.

In most countries Punishment for Raping is long Jail time and not death penalty. This person has given the man death penalty without a trial.

Without a trial it is difficult to know that man who was killed actually was guilty or innocent.

Trial is the process by which one is judged and punished according to set rules.

Life is not fair, but if every one were to take law in their own hand, then life will be not only not fair but will become unbearable and not livable.

With a good lawyer the man will have good defence for his action. Good lawyer will call it a temporary insanity, man may not even do any jail time but he may have to be confined to a mental ward in a hospital, treated and realised.

Answer 4

First, there's no evidence that the child was molested or raped. So far news reports have said that the daughter said something to her mother which disturbed her; she reported that to her husband, who then murdered his neighbor. There's absolutely zero evidence that the child was molested at all, much less that the neighbor was responsible. It's very possible that an innocent man is dead, and that this girl will have to grow up knowing that because of her her father will spend most of his life in prison and another man is dead. If the neighbor truly was innocent and the child's statements were misinterpreted, this will scar her for life.

Second, it's not his place to dispense justice. That's what the law is for. If he believed his daughter was raped then he should have gone to the police, who would have gathered evidence and mounted a prosecution if it was warranted. This man committed murder. He definitely broke the law. There's no evidence that his neighbor did anything other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This wasn't justice, it was murder.

Answer 5

Well, the reason is: He murdered a man.

It doesn't matter if the man was the person who raped his 2-year-old daughter.

Here's article 3 from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by by the United Nations Department of Public Information:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

And here is article 5:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

And here is article 7

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

And here is article 10

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

The key-words on 10 are "IMPARTIAL tribunal"

And here is article 11

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Another point to mention is: 75% of all incarcerated men are subjected to prison-rape. Especially if the prisoner is there directly due to a sex crime.

The man had raped a child.
The man was being tried for his crimes.
The man was going to pay for his crime (in more than just prison years)
Justice was served.

How do you justify a man killing a man as being worthy of a medal? Because the victim raped a child? What about redemption? Isn't that possible? Could the raper not have redeemed himself with the imposed sentence?

*just some pointers out there

Answer 6

Two wrongs don't make a right. I understand the immense pain this man had to go through, but by murdering this man, he ended his life, and with that the ability to spend the rest of his life behind bars pondering his actions. Little do we know what happens to us after we die. Worst that would happen to this man if he is dead is that he does not feel anything at all. Plus, if we could just make exceptions about people killing each other for certain aspects, the lawsystem would become pretty messed up. As terrible as it is, even if it was for a justifyable reason, he still killed and therefore put a pretty bad example for his poor little daughter.

Answer 7

it's still murder. if there was any other way to help his daughter without killing the man, then he coulda kept the man alive so he could be punished by the law, and then the law would be on the father's side. seriously, though, the law is not a sentient being. it doesn't care if an innocent two year old girl has been victimized by some psychologically damaged man. the psycho man is dead, so the only one left to punish is the other man, the man who killed someone. sorry, might not seem fair, but it's what happens.

Answer 8

If in progress - nothing. It would be defense of others. A good atty should be able to get him off.
I don't think a jury would convict.

And he should get a medal, a parade and sainthood.

Society has decided to protect the predator not the victim too many times in the pursuit of fairness. Calling out "I would rather 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned" sounds really good until you are the victim or the relative of the victim.

Answer 9

The justice system runs on a cold razor. We all know the person in question deserved to die.. brutally. We all remorsefully applaud the father for doing it.

The issue is that the system does not work in favor of vigilanties. If it did we would have to have a body detail drive down the road collecting corpses for all the bad drivers we elect to run off the road for cutting us off.

What happened was wrong. And to compare it to road rage is a stretch. I'm a father, if it were my daughter I'd have diced the guys body up. But I would also expect to be put away for it.

The strong thing to do would have been taking the guy to court. Swift and emotional street justice prevailed in this case.

We can not allow street justice to prevail because aside from the obvious who knows what happened? We can not allow the sole decision of 1 person to be able to end life.

Answer 10

If the father was stopping the "act" then he could claim he was
justified in killing the scumbag. If the father found out his 2 year old daughter was raped and discovered who the pervert was
and didn't give the information to the police so the creep could be prosecuted then the death becomes murder as far as the law is concerned. Personally....If I was a parent of a child who was being raped I would probably kill the creep myself and the @#$#@ with the law.

Answer 11

The state or federal government as the right by the US constitution to take a life as punishment for a crime. Until a trial is set for the rape of the daughter, and the person convicted, he is presumed innocent. Therefore, he has taken a life of an innocent man. If it was self defense, then it could have ended, but he did this for someone else. It complicates things. What was his other avenues of action? Was he justified if she was being raped and her life was not being threatened. The law is not specific on this. A trial must take place so that he can present his case to a jury of his peers.

Personally, I would like to consider it justifiable homicide.